the congressional research says let me finish. in 2005, the congressional research service did a report, and they point out that the original debate over the 14th amendment while overwhelmingly about african-americans, was also among both proponents and opponents, about chinese immigrants here and whether the children of foreign workers of chinese workers should actually get citizenship. no, hang on. let s go back to the case, that s not true. it was clear on the debate on the floor, jacob howards and senator cowan made it clear that did not apply to aliens or foreigners in any matter. that was the debate on the floor. then let s take the 1884 u.s. versus wilkins case, it didn t apply to them, it didn t even apply to american indians. because they belong to a tribe, have alienage they were born on a sovereign nation, there s no doubt where they were born. congress had to pass three acts
i think there is a cojones gap in this case, and that is, if the president really believed now is the time for comprehensive immigration reform, he would have to make the case for it. there are a lot of folks in the american public who resist this idea, who take a very different view. and if he really backed it, he would go out, barnstorm and make that argument. time and again, a lot of people on the left have been frustrated with the president s failure to make the case for the public option. and here again, why isn t he actually making that argument? is it because there s going to be a short-term political cost, if that s the reason? that s what cojones are all about. if it s an argument over this ridiculous term, couldn t the same be said about republicans, i mean, john mccain has totally changed his position absolutely, it s 100% lack of cojones on their part. if they believe we need comprehensive reform, it s cowardice. if they ve had a genuine change of heart, that s anot
that s not true. we ve been what do you mean it s not true? well, the congressional research well, hang on, let me. the congressional research says let me finish. in 2005, the congressional research service did a report, and they point out that the original debate over the 14th amendment while overwhelmingly about african-americans, was also about chinese immigrants here and whether the children of foreign workers of chinese workers should actually no, hang on. get citizenship. let s go back to the case, that s not true. it was clear on the debate on the floor, jacob howards and senator cowan made it clear that did not apply to aliens or foreigners in any matter. then let s take the 1884 u.s. versus wilkins case, it didn t apply to them, it didn t even belong to american indians.
for so i have some bias there. neither party has a monopoly on virtue. i have to say, i m very impressed by paul, because a lot of democrats who are in tough competitive districts would love to see both congress members rangel and waters resign very, very quickly, and a lot of folks on the right are very eager to see senator ensign resign as well. because it does complicate the story. although you have bill crystal telling republicans, just be quiet on the charlie rangel thing, let it play out. yeah. you could argue, there s no need to get in the way of this thing, they re destroying themselves pretty well as it is. that makes sense. here s the thing, in every case for example, during the 2006 cycle when there s a lot of talk about jack abramoff, there were scandals, but does it fit the bigger story?
not something barack obama lacks. i do feel for some of the people in arizona and these other states who are suffering under it, and i understand the impetus behind it, but if the former governor of alaska could get her own party on board, they could actually pass some pretty strong immigration reforms and punish those who are here illegally, secure the border and move forward. it s the republicans who are blocking it. i think there is a cojones gap in this case, and that is, if the president really believed now is the time for comprehensive immigration reform, he would have to make the case for it. there are a lot of folks in the american public who resist this idea, take a different view. and if he really backed it, he would go out, barnstorm and make that argument. time and again, a lot of people on the left have been frustrated with the president s failure to make the case for the public option. and here again, why isn t he making that argument? is it because there s going to be